If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Metcalf

Just read his "Backstop" column in G&A December. To say I am stunned is more than an understatement.
I cannot believe that in a magazine that I started reading in 1964, that led the way for the right to keep and bear arms, that I have continuously read even when I didn't have a subscription at times, would allow what he wrote, even though it's an opinion column.
If Mr. Metcalf does not understand the words "well regulated", I will never have any respect for any opinion of his. I have read and studied the times of the Revolutionary War, and pre-war, all my life. I understood "well regulated" the first time I ever saw the words. In the vernacular of the times, it meant "proficient, competent in the use of", not what so many anti-Second Amendment zealots have tried to twist it to mean.
And now, it seems, Mr. Metcalf. Hang your head in shame, . I'm looking thru you, where have you gone?

Re: Metcalf

Well regulated is not the same as well versed or proficient. It means well organized and obedient, a gang turns into a unit if it has a structured chain of command and obedient soldiers. A militia is not a posse, read this:

Re: Metcalf

Originally Posted by 5280 shooter II

Well regulated is not the same as well versed or proficient. It means well organized and obedient, a gang turns into a unit if it has a structured chain of command and obedient soldiers. A militia is not a posse, read this:

Re: Metcalf

Re: Metcalf

I do believe this is it.

"And I do believe that their fellow citizens, by the specific language of the Second Amendment, have an equal right to enact regulatory laws requiring them to undergo adequate training and preparation for the responsibility of bearing arms."

Re: Metcalf

In any event gun control laws are not in line with the context of the 2nd amendment.

I would agree with this. Definitions are changed and altered in just decades and if someone is going to argue about the intent or definition of something written in 1791, they should base their argument on definitions and vernacular of that period.

Originally Posted by Buffco

I would drop trou too, and because I am a caring person I would've given that young man a hug.

Re: Metcalf

Originally Posted by Buford

I do believe this is it.

"And I do believe that their fellow citizens, by the specific language of the Second Amendment, have an equal right to enact regulatory laws requiring them to undergo adequate training and preparation for the responsibility of bearing arms."

Based on his quote, I'd wager that Mr. Metcalf, like many liberals, cannot grasp "shall not be infringed". The meaning has not changed since 1791.

What Metcalf also fails to understand is how many of my fellow citizens would chose to define "adequate training". I recently read a politician saying that the only ones that should be allowed to own an "assault weapon" is SEALs or other people that are members of elite special forces.

The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

Re: Metcalf

Originally Posted by CaliFFL

Based on his quote, I'd wager that Mr. Metcalf, like many liberals, cannot grasp "shall not be infringed". The meaning has not changed since 1791.

What Metcalf also fails to understand is how many of my fellow citizens would chose to define "adequate training". I recently read a politician saying that the only ones that should be allowed to own an "assault weapon" is SEALs or other people that are members of elite special forces.

If only SEALs have assault weapons, what would the rest of our Military carry? They have only carried an AR style rifle for over 40 years now?

Re: Metcalf

Originally Posted by Buford

I do believe this is it.

"And I do believe that their fellow citizens, by the specific language of the Second Amendment, have an equal right to enact regulatory laws requiring them to undergo adequate training and preparation for the responsibility of bearing arms."

No. Look at the first paragraph. Quote: "Note carefully. Those last four words say "shall not be infringed". They do not say 'Shall not be regulated.' "Well regulated" is, in fact, the initial criterion of the amendment itself." Unquote
He goes on to talk about things being restricted, or regulated as if that was the meaning of the words in the 2nd Amendment.

You only have to read the writings of Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and the Federalist Papers to be clear on what "well regulated" means.
Antis have tried to say "well regulated" meant "restricted" for years. I hate to see anything give any credibility in this belief, especially someone who writes for a gun magazine.

Re: Metcalf

Back before I got into guns, before I had a real understanding of how important the bill of rights is, back when I voted for Bill Clinton twice, I read the 2nd amendment. I hadn't read the writings of Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Hamilton or much of anything from the founding of our nation. And I have the same understanding of "well regulated" that I had back then. The people who advocate that it means government regulations are, in my opinion, liars. I was as naive as anyone, but I understood what that meant from the first time I read it.

The first vehicles normally on the scene of a crime are ambulances and police cruisers. If you are armed, you have a chance to decide who gets transported in which vehicle; if you are not armed, that decision is made for you.

Re: Metcalf

The column he wrote is "The Backstop" in Dec. G&A on the last page. Not sure if it's on line anywhere. When I read it last night and posted here I was a little inflamed at his basic ignorance. As I said, I have been a G&A reader for almost 50 years. I won't stop subscribing because of this, but I won't pay any attention to Metcalf any more.

Re: Metcalf

Originally Posted by NN

The Dec issue is not here yet

I just got my December issue yesterday, and read Metcalf's "Backstop" column. At first I was all set to ridicule Fideau. But after digesting Metcalf's drivel, I tend to agree with Fideau. Metcalf is all for folks taking a 16 hour course and test before being issued a CCpermit. He seems to think it's OK to have folks jump through Federal, State and local law enforcement hoops and fork over money in order to defend themselves. The second amendment be damned. I too lost all respect for Metcalf.

Re: Metcalf

Before we jump to conclusions, let's read his article and get the context. A quote does not always deliver the writers intent. The overall point of the article is that there is not any civil right that allows the individual to exercise that right as he/she sees fit. The question is at what point does regulation become infringement?

Re: Metcalf

My, what tangled webs we weave. Never mind Metcalf, Zumbo, trolls, and so forth. You people would be a lot less stressed, and your lives would be simpler and happier if you just listened to me, and only me. Enjoy.

My, what tangled webs we weave. Never mind Metcalf, Zumbo, trolls, and so forth. You people would be a lot less stressed, and your lives would be simpler and happier if you just listened to me, and only me. Enjoy.